Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 1
SHARED SERVICES CENTRES IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR:
A STUDY OF KEY DETERMINANTS AND ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
Rambabu PentyalaResearch Scholar,
Telangana University, Dichpally, Nizamabad.
E-mail:[email protected]
Puli JaipalResearch Scholar,
Telangana University, Dichpally, Nizamabad.
E-mail:[email protected]
Abstract:
Economies of scale continue to increase for most business processes. Because of the desire for
economies of scale, what was previously done internally within an operating unit becomes a service
to be provided either by someone else in the larger organization or by a contractor. In a desire to
achieve economies of scale, what was under an organization’s direct control becomes a service
from someone working for someone else. Thus, the management problem of our time is how to
capture the benefits of these economies of scale in a way that ensures good customer service. The
service provider must be accountable for delivering a defined quality of service for a specific cost.
There must be a link between that cost and user satisfaction. This can be done through fee-for-
service arrangements that emulate the free market or some other mechanism, but the organization
must be able to trade off value for cost. This link must be reflected in agreements between providers
and users. These agreements must impose requirements on users as well as suppliers. The service
provider needs to be accountable, but so does the user. The provider may be accountable for a
price and service quality, but the user needs to be accountable for using the service appropriately.
It is important to be able to quantify at least some of what the organization is getting through a
shared service. Storytelling is not sufficient. Quantification should involve more than just the direct
costs of a service, though this may be the easiest to measure. Quality too matters. Since not
everything can be quantified, there may be a need for qualitative measures as well. Managers also
need to be prepared to update metrics as they gain experience with the service. Despite the many
successful examples in the private sector, not every business process lends itself to a shared
service.
Keywords: Economies of Scale, Shared Services, Metrics, and Return on Investment (ROI)
Introduction:
The human resource (HR) function has had a
turbulent time over the last few years. In many
organizations the pendulum has swung
between downsizing and redundancy
programs and recruitment and retention
difficulties. Organizations have increasingly
paid attention to the customer, to the need for
quality and cost improvement, to produce new
products that stay one step ahead of the
competition and so on. There have been new
forms of service delivery. This may be a
response to a more international operation or
to a shift to the business unit as the primary
organizational structure in place of the function.
There may have been a tendency to
decentralize responsibility for activities so that
decisions are made closer to the customer or
to re-centralize to emphasize the coherence
of the organization. At an operational level,
more and more work may be completed in
short-term project teams and less and less
through traditional jobs. The HR function has
sought to respond and support this sort of
organizational change, at the same time as
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 2
finding its own role and contribution under
scrutiny. Consequently, HR has spent
considerable time examining itself, its role and
its value in the light of its perceptions within
the organization. This has led to changes in
the way HR delivers its services. More work
has been devolved to line managers. Activities
previously carried out in-house have been
outsourced. The HR function has tried to
become more customer friendly, more sensitive
to quality and customer satisfaction. This may
be reflected in opening hours, speed of
response or the way technology has been
harnessed. It has meant HR has had to spend
more attention on the monitoring and
evaluation of its performance.
HR Operations within Shared Services &Support:
The most common general model deployed,
this structure featured either an HR operations
group embedded within a broader HR services
group, or an HR shared services group that
functioned as, and was undistinguished from,
an HR operations group. Firms that operate
with this structure consider their HR shared
services group the main entity accountable for
driving HR operational efficiency. The official
title for this sub-function varies from firm to firm,
although typical titles include “HR shared
services,” “HR operations” or “HR operations,
shared services and support.” In this structure,
survey and interview results suggest that firms
either make the entire sub-function
accountable for operational initiatives (as
described in the “initiatives” section of the
report) or a small, separate group existing
within the sub-function performs such
initiatives and duties. Many firms claim that this
model is most efficient because HR operations
duties and imperatives are closely linked to HR
shared services processes, goals and
initiatives.
Background of the Study:
The study’s objective was to investigate the
current situation as well as trends for SSCs in
the financial services industry – particularly in
the present turbulent economic environment.
Furthermore, we intended to identify innovators
as well as best practices for Shared Service
Centers (SSCs) and collect lessons learned
from early adopters in the FS industry. Finally,
we sought to provide the readers of this study
with thought leadership and opportunities for
further process and cost optimization and
service level improvements through the
deployment of SSC, e.g. for additional
functions and processes. The main questions
we addressed in this study were:• Organizational aspects of introduction and
operation of SSCs• What are the main decision criteria for
choosing a location?• What are the main difficulties to overcome?• What types of processes are covered by
SSCs now and will be c overed inthe future?
• Which processes provide the highest benefitand are these processes already
implemented?
Figure-1: Original shared services assessment framework
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 3
• How should SSCs be introduced to realize
cost savings?
• What role does innovation play regarding
organization of SSCs and their success?
Study Method and Data Collection:
This research was conducted using a
“grounded theory” approach. The survey
questions were initially created based upon
discussions with individuals within the shared
services field. A small focus group was then
asked to give feedback concerning the survey
questions. The focus group consisted of
individuals that work in the shared services
field. Their comments were incorporated into
the survey as appropriate. An extensive list of
potential contacts was then identified and
compiled. An e-mail was compiled that
explained the purpose of the research,
included a link to the survey, and requested
participation. The e-mail was then sent to over
300 individuals on the contact list. The
response rate was slightly higher than 15 per
cent, with approximately 46 respondents
completing the survey. The survey responses
were analyzed, codified, and dissected, and
patterns were identified. Particular attention
was paid to survey answers that appeared
anomalous. After examining the survey
responses and identifying five areas of best
practices, we developed interview questions
pertaining to these areas and conducted
follow-up telephone interviews with selected
respondents.
The interview questions were designed to
delve more deeply into the topics identified as
best practices and gain a thorough
understanding of the approaches used by the
implementation of shared services. So that we
could gain insight directly from individuals and
organizations involved in a shared services
implementation, a survey instrument was
developed. An extensive list of potential
contacts was then identified and compiled.
These contacts were organizations and/or
individuals involved in implementing
government shared services at public agencies
at all levels of governments throughout the
world. An e-mail was compiled that explained
the purpose of the research, included a link to
the survey, and requested participation. The
e-mail was then sent to over 300 individuals
on the contact list. The response rate was
slightly higher than 15 per cent, with 46
respondents completing the survey. In this
section, we summarize the findings from the
survey.
Results and Discussions:
Organizational Aspects of SharedServices Size, coverage and scope:
Shared services–accepted by the FS
(Financial Services) industry? More than 40 per
cent of the SSCs have been established for
more than 3 years, most of th em as managerial
and independent units. Nearly half of SSCs
are operating as group-wide centers. This
demonstrates that shared services are an
accepted organizational and strategic model
within the financial services industry.
Figure-2: Coverage and Organizational Scope
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 4
However, the fact that only 28 per cent of the
centers employ more than 500 people (Full
Time Equivalent-FTEs) across all industry
specific and administrative processes shows
that the implementation of shared services in
Figure-4: Responsibility of management for SSC5 fio5
Figure-3: Number of Employees operating the SSC
the financial sector, compared to other
industries, is still at the beginning of the journey
of reaching a higher degree of efficiency and
integration.
The majority of banks and insurance
companies that do operate Shared Service
Centers have implemented this strategic option
for one or a few processes. But only in very
limited cases have SSCs been implemented
for all or most potential processes.
Furthermore, SSCs are controlled in a rather
traditional way by putting SSCs under the
leadership of a C level (38 per cent) or a
functional leader (31 per cent). This shows that
cross business centers or cross functional
centers are not very common: A situation that
reflects our experience with the existing
centers in a relatively low complexity
environment compared to the increasing
complexity of multi business unit/multi
functional shared services. Only 20 per cent
of respondents have their SSC managed by a
dedicated SSC leader, designated to focus on
the continuous professionalism of the service
delivery.
5.2. Managed processes:
The selection of relevant processes for a
shared service depends on a variety of criteria
e. g. complexity, relevance for the business,
connectivity requirements, opportunity of
standardization etc. For these reasons, it
makes sense to distinguish between core
business processes and support processes.
50 per cent of customer care and payment
services are or will be performed in a SSC
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 5
Figure-5: FS core processes (realized/planned) in per centage
Figure-6: Planned/realized SSCs by category of core business process
Those processes with a relatively low
complexity and high level of standardization
potential are traditionally the most effective
ones for shared services. About 50 per cent of
customer care and payment services are
already or will soon be offered in SSCs
followed by custody and claims management.
Processes with the highest potential for the
future are dunning and collections as well as
security transactions, named by nearly 20 per
cent. The process with the lowest potential for
shared services seems to be credit
management. This process is very often seen
as highly individual and very language specific.
In terms of standardization of credit policies
and a harmonized cross-BU handling these
processes offer high potential for a multi-lingual
SSC even though the complexity of these
centers will rise. The high rating of N/A (not
applicable) for all processes indicates that the
opportunity of using SSC is rather
underestimated considering the number of
companies that have successfully
implemented SSCs for these processes.
The opportunity to use transactional processes
for SSCs is well accepted in the financial
services industry as nearly half of the
processes (46 per cent) are or will be
transaction based. More innovative forms of
shared services, so-called “Centers of
Expertise”, with the opportunity to centralize
expert know-how and make it group-wide
available are continuously growing.
More transactional and support processes are
commonly shared Transactional support
processes are traditionally he driver of shared
services, especially in other industries.
Surprisingly some core processes at banks and
insurance companies (e.g. customer care,
payment services, custody and claims
management) seem to be much better
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 6
Figure-7: Financial and risk processes (realized/planned)
Figure-8: Support processes (realized/planned)
accepted than e.g. financial accounting, even
though financial accounting and financial
control offer a high potential for shared services
compared to other industries. This should
change in the future as indicated by the
participants of this study to a rather high degree
of shared services for IT and human resources.
Compared to financial accounting there is a
higher degree of managing the other support
processes with SSCs and still significant
potential has not been realized so far.
As a conclusion, we see that companies inthe financial services industry have so farconcentrated on the “low hanging fruit”,e.g.on support processes (informationtechnology, human resources, real estate),and there are opportunities to extend thefocus of SSCs towards more value addedservices in the areas of finance, risk and corebusiness processes.Location aspects: Eastern Europe’srelevance for SSC in financial services isrising. Despite the main trend of
centralization there is a strong country focus(44 per cent) with rather low complexity drivenby different legal, language and culturalrequirements. The central bundling ofprocesses seems to stop at national andregional boundaries, with the complexityrising dramatically when crossing frontiers.Only 19 per cent pursue a global orientationwith service provision to all units worldwide.The additional savings by operating SSCsglobally need to be evaluated in the context
of the impact of the rising complexity.
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 7
Figure-9: Regional scope of SSC in percentage deemed feasible
Figure-10: Comparison of present and future location of SSC
A key question regarding the operation of SSCs
is choosing the appropriate location as this is
a strategic decision with a long term time frame
and requiring substantial investments. The
SSCs in the financial services industry are
essentially domestic and near shore entities.
The development of Eastern Europe countries
and in some cases offshore can be seen in
the FS industry. The future shift from domestic
to near shore locations is following the classic
trend. But the offshore market (Asia including
India) is growing significantly, up to 30 per cent
in the future. This also depends on individual
process requirements. Our expertise from
various projects shows that in some cases
three operating models have been established
successfully: domestic location for processes
with high connectivity to the business, near
shore for rather low connectivity requirements
and offshore with very high standardization
potential.
Although some risks exist when transferring
business processes to other internal units or
even to outsourcing partners especially in
financial services (Gewald, et al. 2009),
additional issues might depend on the
geographic location where services are
provided. Qualification as decision critical
criteria The empirical results corroborate prior
findings and theoretical hypotheses from
scientific literature: Personnel qualification and
language skills are the most important decision
criteria for selecting the optimal location. Major
criteria for the “near shore” solution are mainly
geographical and infrastructure opportunities
and language opportunities but also very often
cultural differences with locations outside
Europe. These criteria are important drivers of
complexity during the set-up as well as the
operation of the shared services. The great
importance of data and intellectual security and
privacy reflects the specific requirements of the
financial services industry. Since services rely
heavily on the firm’s know-how, data and
intellectual security.
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 8
The (IT) infrastructure aspect is often
understood as an aspect relevant for
manufacturing offshoring, but not for services
offshoring. Managerial practice now shows that
infrastructure is indeed highly relevant for the
location decision. All in all, the ranking of
decision criteria are suggested decisions about
location are well considered and are not
considered to be trivial.
6. Findings of the Study:
Finding 1-The Goal of Most Shared Services
Initiatives Is Cost Savings: Table 1 shows that
the stated goals of the participants for
implementing a shared services model were
varied. The most frequent response (21) was
cost savings, followed by efficiency and the
desire to provide higher quality service.
Respondents were allowed to list multiple
goals, and several gave “other” responses
such as effectiveness and increased
collaboration.
Figure-11: Importance of criteria for choosing the optimal location in percentage
Table-1: Goal of Shared Services Initiative
GOAL No. %
Cost Savings 21 22
Efficiency 16 16
Provide higher
Quality service 15 15
Reduce redundancy 14 14
Standardization 8 8
Economies of scale 5 5
Other 18 18
Total Responses 97
Finding 2-The Majority of ParticipantsAchieved Their Goals: As indicated in Table 2,the vast majority of the participants (34 out of46) felt that they had achieved their goals inimplementing shared services. Nine of therespondents felt that they had only partiallyachieved their goals (although all of thembelieved that they were on their way to fullycompleting the goals).
Table-2: Were the Goals Achieved?
Finding 3-The Most Common GoalMeasurement Was Cost Savings: The mostcommon measurement of achievement ofgoals was cost savings, followed by increasedeffectiveness, customer satisfaction, andreaching stated goals, as reported in Table 3.
Table-3: How Goals Were Measured?
Finding 4-The Most Positive Result ofImplementing Shared Services Was Improved
ANSWERS No. %
Yes 34 74
Partially 9 20
No 3 6
Total Responses 46
MEASUREMENT No. %
Cost Savings 15 31
Increased effectiveness 9 18
Customer Satisfaction 8 16
Reaching stated goals 8 16
Increased Efficiency 7 14
Other 2 4
Total Responses 49
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 9
Finding 7-The Impetus to Undertake SharedServices Was Most Often Cost or ServiceVariables: The largest number of surveyrespondents reported that it was cost or servicevariables that provided the impetus toundertake the project, followed by a mandatefrom a higher agency.
Table-7: What Was the Impetus to Beginthe Shared Services Implementation
Finding 8-The Most Significant LessonLearned from Implementing Shared ServicesWas That “Change Management Is Key”: Table8 demonstrates that the list of significantlessons learned by survey participants is quitefragmented. The most frequently cited lessonlearned was that “change management is key.”Many of the participants also answered that“communication is key,” “management supportis key,” and “stakeholder support is key.”
Table-8: Most Significant LessonsLearned
NEGATIVE RESULT No. %
People issues 23 43
None 9 17
Mistakes in implementation 7 13
Increased confusion 5 9
Other 10 19
Total Responses 54
WHO INITIATED? No. %
Leaders from within agency 19 40
Committee/group within agency 15 32
Policy mandate from higher
agency 13 28
Total Responses 47
Impetus to Begin No. %
Mandated by cost or service
variables 17 39
Mandated by higher agency 12 27
Leaders in agency pushed it 6 14
Public prompting 4 9
Other 5 11
Total Responses 44
RESULT No. %
Improved service 10 19
Increased collaboration 7 13
Standardized services 6 11
Increased Efficiency 4 7
Increased focus 4 7
Cost savings 4 7
Consolidation of services 3 6
Increased awareness 3 6
Increased constituent support 3 6
Other 10 19
Total Responses 54
Service: Table 4 lists what the respondentsthought were the most positive results ofimplementing shared services. The responses,while fragmented, most often listed improvedservice and increased collaboration as thegreatest positive results.
Table-4: Most Positive Result ofImplementing Shared Services
Finding 5-The Most Negative Result ofImplementing Shared Services Was “PeopleIssues”: Conversely, the most commonly citednegative result (as shown in Table 5) waspeople issues. People issues included thingssuch as lack of change management, politicalturf wars, and job losses.
Table-5: Most Negative Result ofImplementing Shared Services
Finding 6-Shared Services Was Most OftenInitiated By Leaders Within the Agency: Table6 indicates the reasons reported forundertaking a shared services implementation.The majority of respondents reported thatleaders within their organization had initiatedshared services, with a large number statingthat it was a committee within the agency or amandate from a higher agency.
Table-6: Who Initiated the Shared ServicesImplementation in Your Organization
Lesson Learned No. %
Change management is key 17 24
Communication is key 11 16
Management support is key 11 16
Stakeholder support is key 9 13
Need good governance/
planning 6 9
Other 16 23
Total Responses 70
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 10
Biggest Mistake No. %
Insufficient change
management 12 25
Poor Project management 7 15
No mistakes 6 13
Lack of resources 5 10
Insufficient communication 5 10
Poor planning 4 8
Other 9 19
Total Responses 48
Finding 9-The Biggest Mistake Made inImplementing Shared Services WasInsufficient Change Management: Table 9 (seepage 20) presents the biggest mistakes madeby the respondents in implementing a sharedservices model. Many respondents (12) felt thattheir biggest mistake was not having sufficientchange management.
Table-9: The Biggest Mistakes That MyOrganization Made
Finding 10-The Thing Most Organizations DidWell Was Project Management: Theparticipants were divided as to the answer mostfrequently given for the things that theirorganization did particularly well (Table 10).Project management and collaboration werethe answers most often given. When combinedthese two answers represented 59 per cent ofthe responses.
Table 10: Things My Organization DidWell
7. Summing Up: Companies in the financialand public services industry have alreadyimplemented SSCs for their support andtransactional processes. However, in the firststep the industries are focused on the “lowhanging fruit”. The next steps will be to improvethe existing services, to increase client
Things Done Well No. %
Project management 13 28
Collaboration 11 23
Change/People management 5 11
Planning 4 9
Good Project execution 4 9
Standardization 4 9
Other 6 13
Total Responses 47
satisfaction, to include further processes anddevelop new services that offer added valueto the clients.
Figure-12: The potential benefits of theHR shared services journey.
(Source-Accenture news letter)
Increased pressure on quality and riskmanagement over pure cost reduction SSCsprovide sustainable cost savings in the longterm. As location decisions result inconsiderable investments it will not be possibleto realize ongoing cost savings throughrepeatedly moving from one location toanother. Cost savings based on labor costarbitrage due to lower salaries in near-shoreor offshore locations will be more and moredifficult to realize. Limitations will not only beinfrastructure, language requirements andavailability of skilled resources but also, forexample, data and intellectual security andprivacy. Therefore, it will be more and moreimportant to realize further optimizationpotential in process automation andstandardization. Organizational alternatives,e.g. as Centers of Expertise or outsourcing oftransactional activities or combinations of SSCand outsourcing will gain more importance inthe future. Additional processes performed bya Shared Service Centre organization willenlarge the offered services and added valueto the internal customer. As one attribute ofSSCs is the introduction of market conditionsfor internal services, the role of the former“colleague” has changed more and more to aninternal customer who pays for the service.Therefore, quality, risk management conceptsand service level management will gain greaterimportance to ensure the continuous operationof the SSC. Organizational models such as ashared service have just been accepted in the
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 11
financial services industry and will be widelyadopted in the future as it delivers significantcost savings and enhanced process quality inFS and Public services core and supportprocesses.
References:
1) Accenture News Letter
2) Aguirre, D., Couto, V., Disher, C. & Neilson,
G. (1998) Shared Services: Management
Fad or Real Value. Chicago: Booz-Allen &
Hamilton, Inc
3) BEA Systems, Inc. (November 7, 2006)
Public Sector Appetite for Service-Oriented
Architecture (SOA ): Shared Services is
Accelerating According to Economist
Intelligence Unit Report. PR Newswire US
4) Bergeron, B. P. (2003) Essentials of
Shared Services. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons
5) Cecil, B. (April 2000) Shared Services:
Moving beyond success. Strategic Finance
81(10) 64–68. The Computerworld Honors
Program (2006) Case Study: Erie County,
NY, www.cwhonors.org/case studies/
ErieCountyNY.pdf
6) Deloitte (September 6, 2005) Negotiating
the shared services minefield. Human
Resoures Magazine
7) Donnelly, M. (January/February 2005)
Avaya’s journey to global HR shared
service. Strategic HR Review Vol. 4 Issue
2
8) Forst, L. I. (July/August 2001) Shared
Services Grows Up. Journal of Business
Strategy 22(4), 13–15
9) Fyfe, T. (February 2006) “Finetuning
Shared Services: It’s a different road in the
public sector,” www.itworldcanada.com
(accessed October 10, 2007)
10) Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The
Discovery of Grounded Theory.
Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing
Company
11) Gould, K. & Magdieli, A. (2007) Optimizing
Government Effectiveness through Shared
Services: Perspectives from IBM
Corporation. IBM Global Services. IBM
Corp
12) Irwin, D. (July 2005) AGA CPA G Research
Series: Report No. 2
13) Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1992). The
Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive
Performance. Harvard Business Review
(January/February): 75–85
14) Kerzner, H. (2004) Advanced Project
Management: Best Practices on
Implementation. 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons
15) Kliem, R. L. (2004) Leading High-
Performance Projects. Boca Raton,
Florida: J. Ross Publishing, Inc
16) Longman, A. & Mullins, J. (2005) The
Rational Project Manager: A Thinking
Team’s Guide to Getting Work Done.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
17) Marchewka, J. T. (2006) Information
Technology Project Management:
Providing Measureable Organizational
Value. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
18) NASA Shared Services Center: A Brief
History 2007. www.nssc.nasa.gov/main/
background.htm
19) NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC)
Implementation Plan Report (September
2003). www.nssc.nasa.gov/main/
background.htm
20) NASA SSON Application for Best New
Shared Service (2007),
www.nssc.nasa.gov/main/background.
htm
21) NAS CIO’s Survey on IT Consolidation &
Shared Services in the States: A National
Assessment (May 2006)
22) Peters, P. & Silver, J. (June 2005)
Renewed Interest in Shared Services:
Adopting industry best practices can help
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 12
internal IT shared-services groups
increase economies of scale, cost savings,
and user satisfaction. Optimize, pp. 69–
72, 74
23) Popper, K. R. (1963) Conjectures and
Refutations. New York: Routledge, pp.
238–39
24) Queensland Government, Building the
Queensland Government’s Shared Service
Initiative (December 2002),
www.sharedservices.qld.gov.au/
25) Queensland Government, Overview of the
Queensland Government’s Shared Service
Initiative: Part of the Queensland
Government’s Business Plan for Shared
Services (December 2002),
www.sharedservices.qld.gov.au/
26) Queensland Government Shared Service
Initiative Achievements (2006–2007),
www.sharedservices. qld.gov.au/
27) Queensland Government, Transitioning
People to the Queensland Government’s
Shared Service Initiative (December
2002), www.sharedservices.qld.gov.au/
28) Rahman, A. A. (April 21, 2005) Looking at
shared services model for public sector.
New Straits Times Press, Berhad Business
Times, p. 7
29) Rosencrance, L. (2007) Survey: Poor
communication causes most IT project
failures. Computerworld
30) Saia, R. One Project, One Voice.
Computerworld, February 8, 1999,
www.computerworld.com/news/ story/
0.11280.33846.00.html
31) Schulman, D., Harmer, M., Dunleavy, J. &
Lusk, J. (1999) Shared Services: Adding
Value to the Business Units. New York:
John Wiley & Sons
32) Searle, P. (October 2006) Shared Services
Implementation: 2006 Survey Results.
SharedXpertise
33) T. Kearney, Inc. (2005) Shared Services
in Government: Turn private-sector
lessons into publicsector best practices
34) T. Kearney, Inc. (2004) Success through
Shared Services: From Back-Office
Functions to Strategic Drivers
35) The National Association of State Chief
Information Officers (NAS CIO) (March
2006) Issue Brief: IT Consolidation and
Shared Services: States Seeking
Economies of Scale
36) Wessels, D. J. (February 2007) The
Strategic Role of Project Management. PM
World Today, Vol. IX , Issue II
Appendix Questionnaire
Background Information:
Please answer the following questions asbest as possible.Name: ______________________________
· Title: ______________________________
· Organization: _______________________
· Email: ____________________________
· Phone #: __________________________
May we call you to discuss your answers?
· ___ No, Do not call ___ Yes, Call anytime___ Yes, Call mornings only
· ___ Yes, Call afternoons only ___ Yes, Callafter hours
Month/Year that Shared ServicesImplementation Began (MMYYYY):__________Month/Year that Shared ServicesImplementation Completed (MMYYYY):_________Services Shared:
· ___ Accounting ___ Human Resources ___Information Technology ___ Payroll ___Purchasing
Is it OK to list your name and agency in the“acknowledgements” section of the finalreport?
Srusti Management Review, Vol -XI, Issue - I, Jan - June, 2018 13
___ Yes, you may list my name as a contributor___ No, I prefer to remain anonymous
Would you like a copy of the final reportwhen this research has been completed?· ___ Yes ___ No
Questions on Goals:1. What was the goal of your shared services
implementation?2. Has that goal been achieved? Please
explain.3. How did you measure if you achieved the
goal(s)?4. What is the most positive result of the
shared service initiative?5. What is the most negative result and how
could it have been avoided?6. Who pushed this strategic initiative within
the organization? Whose idea was it?7. How did you know when you were ready to
undertake your Shared Services project?What was the impetus?
Questions on the Implementation Process:What were the most significant “lessonslearned” from your shared servicesimplementation?
What were the biggest mistakes that yourorganization made and what would you dodifferently?What were the things that your organizationdid especially well?Were your greatest challenges (choose one):___ People Oriented ___ Technology Oriented___ Process Oriented
Please explain these challenges.
What steps did you take to overcome thepeople, technology, and process challenges?How did you become involved in the initiative?From within your organization who were thekey people in implementing your sharedservices initiative and why?From outside your organization (i.e., vendors,consultants, etc.) who were the key people inimplementing your shared services initiative?What role did they play both during and afterthe implementation?Is there a preferred order of implementation(i.e., should certain tasks or jobs getimplemented first, second, etc.) or does it allhappen at once?Advice for other Public AgenciesImplementing A Shared Services Program:
What services would you recommend as mostideal to share?
___ Accounting ___ Human Resources ___Information Technology ___ Payroll ___Purchasing
What advice would you give to someone juststarting a public shared servicesimplementation?If you were asked to provide a list of “bestpractices,” what would be on the list?Are there any other comments that you wouldlike to make (about this research or anythingelse)?The administrators of this survey are lookingfor more people for this research. Pleaseprovide contact information of other people thatyou know who have participated inimplementing shared services in a publicagency and who might be interested incompleting this survey.